Some interesting responses from non-Christians to YEC teaching

[Vance]

You know, you are really just not worth the effort, I am concluding. You don't seem to grasp even the most basic points being made. Not that you have to agree with them, but you are simply do not seem to be able to understand them, and so we go around and around.

I really can't be bothered to waste this type of time anymore.

 

[Dutchunter]

Oh I understand them completely. You got caught blaming YEC's for damaging our faith and people turning away from our faith. I pointed out there are many many cases where it's just the opposite. Then you try to lecture me about what I should be discussing here when you should have been looking in the mirror.

 

[Vance]

I didn't get "caught" doing anything. I have always said, and I will always say that YEC teaching is very dangerous and has led many, many people to lose their faith in Christ, or never consider it in the first place. This is a true statement. I have seen it happen and the posts in this thread show that it happens.

The fact that AIG says that some have decided to come to Christianity as a result of their site does not make my statement untrue in the least. Sure, even false messages can bring people to Christ, but what happens when a new Christian is brought in to the fold based on a false teaching? When they discover that the teaching was false, I hope that they have found out that their faith is not dependant on the teaching!

And what are you talking about when you say a lecture? This thread is for this discussion on the effect that YEC arguments can have. If you wish to discuss the actual evidence for and against YEC'ism or evolution, that is a different discussion and you must be willing and able to support your proposition.

 

[Dutchunter]

I didn't get "caught" doing anything. I have always said, and I will always say that YEC teaching is very dangerous and has led many, many people to lose their faith in Christ, or never consider it in the first place. This is a true statement. I have seen it happen and the posts in this thread show that it happens.

The fact that AIG says that some have decided to come to Christianity as a result of their site does not make my statement untrue in the least. Sure, even false messages can bring people to Christ, but what happens when a new Christian is brought in to the fold based on a false teaching? When they discover that the teaching was false, I hope that they have found out that their faith is not dependant on the teaching!

And what are you talking about when you say a lecture? This thread is for this discussion on the effect that YEC arguments can have. If you wish to discuss the actual evidence for and against YEC'ism or evolution, that is a different discussion and you must be willing and able to support your proposition.

Is something bothering you? You say you're going to quit so many times and yet you continue.

It's not some- it's many. It may not make your statement untrue but it's an exaggeration if you ask me and pathetic you even post it. Gee....I wonder how many of those who are Saved read statements such as yours and then read that the non-believers use a lot of the same arguments..so they start questioning their faith? See how easy that was?

There is nothing false about teaching Creation. There is nothing false about teaching a young earth- 6 day Creation.

Oh boy...here's your lecture again:

Listen, if you want to debate legitimate points about the theory of YEC'ism vs. other interpretations of Genesis, go right ahead, but it does nothing to further the discussion simply to come here and make the conclusory and unsupported blastings you are making right now.

My response:

You really need to look in the mirror. YOU are the one who started this thread. YOU are the one made unsupported blastings of YEC's and started a discussion NOT on legitimate points about EITHER YEC or other interpretations of Genesis.

 

[Vance]

You said:

There is nothing false about teaching Creation. There is nothing false about teaching a young earth- 6 day Creation.

Well, sure there is if a six 24-hour day creation is wrong. Would you not agree with that?

As for the similarity between what I say and what a non-believer says, this is a non-point. If you were discussing photosynthesis and a non-believer was discussing it, you guys would hopefully be saying a LOT of the same things. If I am talking about why evolution is correct, then of course all those who agree that this is true will be saying the same thing, Christian and non-Christian.

Again, the only reason anyone would have a crisis of faith is if they were also hearing that evolution and Scripture were incompatible in some way. Absent that, there is no crisis of faith in the least. Even better, to the extent they hear that they are NOT in conflict, this can ONLY serve to bolster their faith. How could it not?

 

[Dutchunter]

You said:

There is nothing false about teaching Creation. There is nothing false about teaching a young earth- 6 day Creation.

Well, sure there is if a six 24-hour day creation is wrong. Would you not agree with that?

As for the similarity between what I say and what a non-believer says, this is a non-point. If you were discussing photosynthesis and a non-believer was discussing it, you guys would hopefully be saying a LOT of the same things. If I am talking about why evolution is correct, then of course all those who agree that this is true will be saying the same thing, Christian and non-Christian.

Again, the only reason anyone would have a crisis of faith is if they were also hearing that evolution and Scripture were incompatible in some way. Absent that, there is no crisis of faith in the least. Even better, to the extent they hear that they are NOT in conflict, this can ONLY serve to bolster their faith. How could it not?

I don't believe a 6- 24 hour day is wrong. I guess I could ask you the reverse. Saying why evolution is correct wouldn't be correct.


You've just made my point. You should stop saying a 6 day Creation is incompatible with Scripture. That's if you want to be consistent. Again, it's the evolutionist/non-believers who you are more associated with when it comes to origins. You are using the same flawed science. The same frauds(oh wait...u can just throw those out and hope people forget). The same changing of theories to fit your own agenda. So much stuff that gets posted from those on your side as "evidence" is changed from what was supposed to be the evidence/theory in the past.

 

[Vance]

I don't say a six 24 hour day Creation is incompatible with Scripture. I say it is one of the possible interpretations. I do say that a six 24 hour day Creation is incompatible with God's Creation itself.

Show where the science is flawed, show how the hoaxes disprove the theory (any more than fraudulent Christians who fleece the flock don't disprove Christianity).

 

[Dutchunter]

This is sad. A 6 day 24 hour day Creation is not incompatible with God's Creation.

The flawed science and multiple hoaxes are just a part of what disprove the "theory". If evolutionists have to lie to make their case that speaks volumes. The dating methods used themselves are flawed.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/earth.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/dating.asp

Only two examples of many...

 

[Vance]

I will deal with the dating techniques in detail later, but first you need to provide a substantive reply to my new thread. Otherwise, why bother providing you with the refutations of YEC nonsense.

In the meantime, you can check out this from a Creationist site on the validity of dating techniques:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/radiometricdating/index.shtml?main

It is called Radiometric dating: A Christian perspective

 

[Dutchunter]

Please don't tell me what I need to do. I have asked for many things here and have gotten nothing. If you don't want to respond or can't, fine.

He's also old earth. Notice the links I provided contain references to evolutionists who also doubted the dates etc.

 

[Vance]

No, you have gotten responses that you will not respond to in detail, only with "well, that's YOUR opinion."

YOu have shown yourself not worth debating the issues with, so I will not bother anymore. I will let others waste their time on you.

 

[Dutchunter]

Oh really? Why didn't you respond to what I just said then yourself?

It's not my fault you had a bad source- another old earther. And I am correct that evolutionists even debate their own dating methods- as those links show.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Now here's a classic example of AiG being less than honest.

I've just read this article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/earth.asp

The first section I happen to know about. Point is, these crystals would be expected to be of different ages! No-one's suggesting the individual crystals formed in situ embedded in the rock where they now find themselves! It's like suggesting that the date of a Roman pot in a museum is invalid because the museum also contains a 1950s vase! A complete non story. Nearly as patently dishonest as the Hawaian volcano canard.

The second story (the six billion year age) I don't know anything about. I wouldn't be surprised to learn there's some similar creationist sleight of hand here, but I don't know the details.

 

[Dutchunter]

Ah....the beauty of being so flexible. Gotta love it.

As I stated those are just 2 examples of many.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

What's it got to do with flexibility? FACT - mainstream science does not expect these crystals to be the same age. FACT - they were not. FACT - non-story at AiG.

There are always examples being put forward by creationists. They invariably turn out to be misrepresentations. Care to try some more?

Your fundamental misunderstanding is, of course, that evolution has nothing to do with radiometric dating. Evolution had been worked on for decades before these techniques were invented. Radiometric daters are not "evolutionists" - they are physicists.

 

[Dutchunter]

See what I mean? So darn flexible! Forget radiometric dating! That's flawed! Except when it helps our cause of course.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

What are you talking about?

POINT: Radiometric dating works fine
POINT: AiG has a non story
POINT: It's actually a minor point and a side issue as regards evolution
POINT: Flexibility is a total irrelevance.

 

[Vance]

Karl, did you say radiometric dating was flawed? I must have missed that bit somewhere . . .

Oh, and Karl, while you have more patience than I, always keep in mind that one positive thing: Dutchunter is doing a better job driving people away from YEC'ism than either of us could hope to do.

 

[Dutchunter]

The dating methods have been proven to be flawed, as I already pointed out. Evolution doesn't have to rely on those dating methods. I wonder why. It's the flexibility issue. When it serves your agenda and helps your fairy tale....then of course it's used as "evidence".

Vance....another evolutionary tale there? You couldn't come up with any evidence for your last statement to save your life. But you can keep repeating it just like you do with the fairy tale. Some are bound to believe it.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

But the one AiG article I was knowledgeable enough to critique showed a glaring misrepresentation. But rather than take a step back and appraise who's misleading you, you prefer to throw an accusation of lying at scientists who know more about their fields than you could ever hope to imagine.